ML20004E808

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Contention 6.Two-yr Meteorological Study Does Not Constitute Sufficient Test Period to Generalize Meteorological Assumptions. Accuracy of Methodology Flawed.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20004E808
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	06/04/1981
From:	Woliver J CLERMONT COUNTY LEGAL AID SOCIETY, FRANKHAUSER, D.D.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106150304
Download: ML20004E808 (5)

Text

F Gh/

.\ ,

/ NN  ?.

/.v vs UNITED STATES OF AW RICA 'D O* D '

1; c~ ~~

h"JCLEAR PIGUI/.r0RY COMMISSICN i.C 2 93! = f.9 M JUN ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A Y, .. .1 I

~- gy .[Y....e g, l s ~c \ ' \@

In the Matter of -

THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC Docket No. 50-358-OL CONFANY, et al.

c\g g l ch ' // '

(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power g I Station)  :

E u jutt 1o 198W i

i U.5 $^*is's'$$

INTERVENOR DAVID FANKHAUSER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT '.;.';,

AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON CONTENTION 6 \ ,' . _

.;,;_~-

'.,[, 9 Pursuant to the Board's order of November 20, 1980, Intervenor David Fankhauser, by counsel, submits herein his proposed Findings of Fact on Conten-tion 6.

l

1. Intervenor Fankhauser's Contention 6 reads as follows:

!, The Applicants will not meet the design objectives of Appen-dix I 10 C.F.R. Part 50 because the dose levels to the children at the Moscow Elementary School will exceed those which are permissible.

l

2. The Licensing Board has been advised that the Moscow Elementary School was closed, thereby msking moot this issue. Tr. 4246-47. Based upon assurances l that the Moscow Elementary School is closed and upon the assumption that the l

l Moscow Elementary School will not reopen, Contention 6 is thereby mooted.

However, in the unlikely event that the Moscow Elementary School would reopen, pso3 the issues raised by Contention 6 would be subject to further review by this 3 Board upon its own initiative or upon an appropriate motion by the Staff or an /O intervenor. However; for completeness of the record, this Board will p' resent its findings on -this . Contention.

810615 030Y g -_. _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - _ -- .. _ . - _ , . - .

\

3. Both the Applicants and the Staff have attempted to show that the maximum exposure due to various pathways would not be to individuals at the Moscow Elementary School. These calculations were based upon a two year meteoro-i logical study at the Zimmer-site and upon calculations of the annual gaseous i effluents from the Zimmer facility during normal operations.

4. While the Applicants attempted to show that they utilized a conserva-tive occupancy factor of 0.25 in their calculations, this occupancy factor fails to take into consideration the possible use of the school facilities (i.e. the .

school playground) by children who attend the Moscow Elementary School during times when the school is closed (in particular weekends and sunmer vacation).

Therefore, this Board does not find the 0.25 occupancy factor to be conserva-tive, and in some cases this figure would be understated. Tr. 628-635.

5. This Board finds that a two year meteorological study at the Zimmer site does not constitute a sufficient " test period" from which generalized meteoroligical assumptions can be made. Tr. 802.

6. The accuracy of the methodology which was used to calculate the criti-cal doses of highest exposure is flawed. The evidence shows that during normal operations of tne Zimmar facility, approximately 25% of all the gaseous radioac-tive effluents from Zimmer will occur in approxbastely four 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> periods on an annual basis resulting from operation of the mechanical vacuum pump and the dry well purge. Both the mechanical vacuum pump and the dry well purge are non-continuous sources of releases. Neither the Applicants nor the Staff factored into their calculations relevant considerations of the ef fects from

! operation of the mechanical vacuum pump and the dry well purge over the course I

l

.I of normal operation. This Board finds that calculation of the maximum critical doses must take into consideration the possibility that tne wind direction and other atmospheric conditions might be substantially si=ilar during the four 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> periods in which the mechanical vacuum pump and dry well purge are function-ing. As a result of the Applicants and Staff's failure to consider this, the likelihood that a child attending school at the Moscow Elementary School could receive a higher than previously calculated critical dose is greatly enhanced.

Tr. 777, 787, 811,

7. As a result of the special considerations that should be given to the .

operation of the mechanical vacuum pump and the dry well purge, this Board requested the Staff and Applicants to calculate whether scheduling of releases

' 'from the mechanical vacuum pump and dry well purge could effect reductions in man-res and/or man-thyroid-rem dose. This calculation was to be performed in the context of a cost-benefit analysis. Both the Applicants and Staff calcu-laced that such scheduling of the mechanical vacuum pump and the dry well purge would not result in a favorable cost-benefit bals. ace. However, both implicit and explicit in these calculations was the assumption that any such scheduling of the mechanical vacuum pump and the dry well purge functions would result in delays in the operation of the plant. This Board is not convinced that routine scheduling of these functions would result in operational delays if such func-tions were roucinely scheduled during weekends or nights as had been suggested by this Board. Tr. 787. There fore, this Board does not find the cost-benefit ca culations performed by the Applicants and the Staff to be valid.

Respectfully submitted, f /

f l}

!X 4Mw l / John Woliver Counsel for Intervenor David Fankhauser

( Clermont County Legal Aid Societ'y P.O. Box #47

. .. . . . Batavia, Ohio 45103 (513) 732-2422 l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing document were served upon all parties to this proceeding by deposit in the United States mail this +'

day of June, 1981.

/

/

I i Joh Woliver l.

p. .

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Michael C. Farrar, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

! Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Chairman, Atomic Safety and l Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Board Panel l Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i School of Natural Resources Commission l University of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 l Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 l

l Dr. M. Stanley Livingston Chairman, Atomic Safety and l Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Panel l Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

! 1005 Calle Largo Commission ~

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Washington, D.C. 20555 l

l l Charles A. Barth, Esq.

! Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Counsel for the NRC Staff Chariman, Atomic Safety and Office of the Executive Legal l Licensing Appeal Board Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co'mmi s s ion' ~ Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Chase R. Stephens James Feldman, Esq.

Docketing and Service Branch Attorney at Law ,

Office of the Secretary 216 East Ninth Street G ' ", s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cincinnati, Ohio 452 .

Commission Q q, Washington, D.C. 20555

'] ,,

i. .- - JUN. 819&f. a -I3

. . . . . . A ~7 - f Strice

\ /,N ,

I*

- . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ , _ _ . _ _ .. _ . , _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , . . - __ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ .

William Peter Heile, Esq. David K. Martin, Esq.

Assistant City Solicitor Assistant Attorney General City of Cincinnati Acting Director Box 214 Division of Environmental Law Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Office of Attorney General 209 St. Clair Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Mrs. Mary Reder George Pattison Box 270 ?rosecuting Attorney of Route 2 Clermont County, Ohio California, Kentucky 41007 Main Street '

Batavia, Ohio

~

45103 Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.

Attorney at Law 200 Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 Troy B. Conner, Esq.

Conner, Moore and Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

l ,

Washington, D.C. 20006 l-.

t l

I WMb e e , #-

I l < . ..

~5-

- . . _ - _. . , .. _ . _, _- ._ . -- - . _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ . _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . . . . . - -